WOMMA and Consumer Watchdogs Beat a Straw-marketer

So, I finally got around to checking out the agenda for WOMMA's upcoming conference in D.C. in December. Most of the agenda's the standard fare for WOMMA: How to influence the influencers, evangelists and other people with nothing better to talk about than your new energy drink or soap scum remover.

In addition to the couple of political and government oriented panels that are out of the ordinary (one on industry self-regulation and another on lessons from grassroots political campaigning), one session in particular caught my eye:

The Consumer Viewpoint: Consumer Advocates' View of WOM
3:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
Hear directly from consumer advocates who have opposed word of mouth and asked for controls and reforms within the industry.
- How to distance yourself from stealth marketers
- Learn strategies for protecting and respecting your customers

My first thought was, "Man, I wish they'd ask me to be there." I've spoken to more than one person in the WOM industry who thinks the issues I've raised in SPS I and II regarding WOM marketing's potential impact on society are worth considering. Still, I'm not surprised I haven't been asked to appear as one who's opposed word of mouth. I'm not Commercial Alert or some other org with prominence. I don't put out press releases about my latest letter to the FTC or post futile online petitions to my site. The WOMMA site doesn't list who these consumer advocates will be (maybe no one's confirmed yet).

Not that I have the naivety to suggest my arguments against advertiser-engineered WOM would have much of an impact if SPS had more prominence; however, inviting a low-profile type such as myself to a panel like this would only serve to raise awareness of the issues raised in SPS. Why give a rabble-rousing nobody a forum?

Yet again, this exemplifies the misguided focus of anti-stealth consumer advocates who seem concerned only with whether or not marketers are honest with us. As I've contended in the past, this approach is not only idealistic, it misses the real problem posed by WOM marketing. That is, the commercialization of our interpersonal relationships. Here's how I put it in The Lowbrow Lowdown about a year ago:

I'll give Commercial Alert credit for helping to bring such tactics to the attention of the broader public; however, if heeded, the group's call for regulation will have little effect on the growing number of willing brand disciples who have no qualms about enabling the commercialized corruption of their relationships. In fact, the notion that consumers are victims in need of government protection from buzz marketing denies the simple fact that it's those very consumers spreading the branded word who allow the existence of such schemes in the first place. The government can't save us from our own human tendencies towards lying, servility or gullibility.

The people at WOMMA seem to like to present themselves as Spitzer-style crusaders fighting dirty marketing tactics. The WOMMA folks love to preach about how open and honest WOM marketing is because they say it enables an open dialogue between consumers and companies, so this transparency vs. stealth stuff obviously connects with their overall objective. The fact is, stealth WOM tactics could crush the industry if enough of it occurred or were exposed, and they sure as hell don't want their industry getting a bad name.

To question the broader effect of turning people's conversations into media channels would require far more introspection and willingness to recognize the negative side of WOM marketing.